FAQ Wishlist 4.0

[T10]

There was a hidden intent behind those questions that you touched upon with special abilities that affect multiple units.

The way I see it a unit should use an unmodified base value for its characteristic and then apply its own modifiers to that value. It just sits wrong with me to apply the same modifier TWICE, which is what you do if you replace the dependent base value (before modifiers) with the modified parent value and then apply the dependent model's modifiers.

That's a lot of fancy talk to get to the fact that if an Orc general (Ld 9) and a Goblin (Ld 6) are both subject to the Aura of Dark majesty, then the by first modifying the General's Ld you get Ld 8 that he can spread around, but then the Goblin gets Ld 7 when it to has to take into account the Aura. That adds up to a -2 penalty from an ability that only actually provides a -1 penalty.

Sure, that just means that you apply common sense and just add the condition that the dependent models don't apply modifiers from any source that has already been applied to the parent value. But what is the "same source"? If the Orc general and the Goblin were affected by two different Vampires each with the same Aura ability, how is that different from being affected by just one?

Again you apply common sense: The Aura would normally not apply multiple penalties to a unit within range of multiple Vampires, so we jusr make sure that the dependent models don't apply the same modifiers of the same TYPE of source that has already been applied to the parent value.

The same line of thought can bring you into the realm of characteristic modifying spells (both the Orc and the Night Goblin are subject to the same spell, or the same spell cast twice, once on each of the two) and different spells that affect the same characteristic.

It seems to me that common sense is both the boon and bane of this particular issue. It makes sense that a scared or disoriented general is less effective, that scared or disoriented troops are less effective then their unaffected counterparts, but that these two factors on combination need to be moderated... Somehow.

I think it's safe to assume that GW is going to make a half-assed attempt at addressing the issue that somehow makes it all worse.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Urgh, okay I see. Well, I would certainly ask the question outright rather than a bunch of leading questions because you can bet your boots they won't see the implication.

Right now it is a question that needs to be asked because certainly it is the case that if the general's Ld is modified, it is passed on to the troops and if the unit's Ld is modified then that modifier is applied to the inspiring presence.

[AMWOOD co]

I'm trying to compose this issue into proper questions, and noted to myself that it also applies to one other issue we see all the time: My Will Be Done for Tomb Kings.

So, how do these sound:

Ch10: If the general's unit and another unit are both affected by an area of effect special rule that reduces their Ld (eg. The Hell Totem, Aura of Dark Majesty) then will this be applied twice, once to modify the general's Inspiring Presence and then once more to the unit?

Tomb Kings:
TK01: If a unit is accomanied by a model with My Will Be Done is affected by a spell or ability that reduced its WS, (eg. Melkoth's Mystifying Miasma), does the unit ignore the reduction in favour of the character's unmodified WS?

I don't really like the wording, so I need some help from a few word smiths.

[brynolf]

Edit: I know that there are a number of issues popping up with the Empire already (eg. Steadfast and Detachments, how's that work?), but my Empire opponent recently moved to Winnipeg so I haven't been paying attention. Little help?

The steadfast detachment issue has been discussed on several forums and no consensus so far. Basically it all comes down to the fact that the Steadfast rules in the BRB itself can be interpreted in different ways with regard to exactly when a unit is steadfast (so it can pass it on to its detachment). So maybe the question could be as "simple" as:

Q: When exactly is and when is not a unit Steadfast?

[sorberec]

Basically it all comes down to the fact that the Steadfast rules in the BRB itself can be interpreted in different ways with regard to exactly when a unit is steadfast (so it can pass it on to its detachment).

How many ways can it be interpreted? Steadfast has to be one of the clearest rules in the book. Do you have more ranks of 5 or more models than any enemy unit in combat with you? If yes and you lost combat then you're Steadfast, if not then you're not.

[Lord Inquisitor]

The issue is that the Empire parent unit passes on Steadfast onto detachments. What if the parent unit isn't in combat? What if it is in a different combat (especially if fighting an enemy with more ranks?) What if the parent is in a wood or otherwise ineligible to be Steadfast? And so on.

[AMWOOD co]

How about we keep the detachment and steadfast question simple and direct.

Empire

• Em01. How does a detachment gain Steadfast from its parent unit?

Oh, and I've updated the list back on page one to include the two questions in my previous post and this one.

[T10]

I would suggest:

Q1. We notice that a few units always get to count as being Steadfast due to being Stubborn, or having garrisoned a building, but for most units this comes into play when they are in combat with enemies that have fewer ranks than themselves. How does the Detachment gain Steadfast from the Regimental unit if the latter is not in combat or is in a different combat?

Q2. When a Detachment both gains Steadfast from the Regimental unit but also loses Steadfast (because it is in a forest, perhaps), does the Detachment lose Steadfast?

[Algovil]

Good formulation, overall I would like us to try and narrow down the list, not sending questions which can be answered. We know GW can not answer all questions, and the more questions we send, the lower the chance that those we really need answering are in fact resolved.

[AMWOOD co]

I would suggest:

Q1. We notice that a few units always get to count as being Steadfast due to being Stubborn, or having garrisoned a building, but for most units this comes into play when they are in combat with enemies that have fewer ranks than themselves. How does the Detachment gain Steadfast from the Regimental unit if the latter is not in combat or is in a different combat?

Q2. When a Detachment both gains Steadfast from the Regimental unit but also loses Steadfast (because it is in a forest, perhaps), does the Detachment lose Steadfast?

Hmm... well, it looks too much like you are taking one side of the arguement T10 (though I know I've been guilty of that from time to time on issues). Q2 seem to assume that the mechanic used is about whether the parent unit IS steadfast now and not if the parent unit WOULD be steadfast in the same situation, something that I know was suggested in the relevent threads here. The only way Q2 would still apply if the latter case is true would be if the parent unit is Stubborn, and since steadfast is passed but not stubborn, we would then need to ask the question, "If a regemental unit is stubborn then will it pass steadfast on to a detachment in a forest or similar terrain where only stubborn units may be steadfast?" To me the obvious answer would be, "No, the detachment is not Stubborn," but that's just me.

As for Q1, you are asking the same question, granted with more detail, after restating the rules for steadfast. Is it necessary to repeat the rules of steadfast before asking how it is used? Also, the mechanic they use may be independent of whether the parent unit is in combat or not, so that's not really the issue either (if they're both in the same combat, it's obvious). The issue is, "By what criteria can a regimental unit make a detachment steadfast?"

A note: I haven't seen the current Empire book, but I have seen the previous three incarnations and so if I constantly state the older term 'parent unit', that's simply how I think on the issue.

[T10]

I think you are over complicating things here:

Q2. makes the assumption that the Detachment will somehow gain Steadfast from the Regimental unit - it is unlikely GW will remove this from the list of benefits. As such it is distinct from whatever implementation of the rule might be revelaed in answer to Q1.

Notice also that Stubborn is a special rule that is among those passed on to the Detachment, and that being Stubborn provides an explicit exception to losing Steadfast while in a forest.


Q1. is there to remind GW that there are actually rules in place for Steadfast, and that some of these rules are persistent effects that allow the unit to count as Steadfast in the event that is should be called upon to make a break test. It further highlights the fact

[DaemonReign]

For the issue of Steadfast in the new Empire book:

GW needs to clarify the very basics here:

Does the regimental have to fullfill the requirements for Steadfast by itself in order to pass this on to the Detachment?
Example: The Regimental loses a combat, has more ranks than the enemy, passes the LD check and *BING* a green light goes on: 'This Unit Is Steadfast!' - it now passes to the Detachment
Or does the Detachment simply use the Regimental's Ranks as though they belonged to the Detachment for the purpose of resolving whether or not it is Steadfast vs an enemy that is fighting (but that the Regimental itself does not necessarily have to be fighting).
(And there's even in-between interpretations here.. *sigh*)

This is what needs clarification first. After which it becomes more or less simple to 'resolve the rest' with the rules we already have in place.
I don't think mixing up Stubborn and Steadfast will do us any favors on this issue.
You are Stubborn if you're inside a Building, not Steadfast. Two different things.

I know T10 read the 'specific' rules-thread on this issue, and I am sure AMWOOD has as well - it's a can of worms. It's simply breathtaking how many minutely different interpretations that surface in that thread alone.

So I think, honestly, the best thing we can do is ask GW:
How - exactly - is Steadfast being passed from Regimental to Detachment resolved?
... And then we simply need to cross our fingers that we actually get an explanation that, well, explains anything.

[Artiee]

Empire Steam Tank, Does the Steam Tank get armor saves on wounds from its miscast chart? There is no str on the wound. We think its a typo. If the tank would get saves it would have a str value for the wound and it would be applyed as hits.

[DaemonReign]

Empire Steam Tank, Does the Steam Tank get armor saves on wounds from its miscast chart? There is no str on the wound. We think its a typo. If the tank would get saves it would have a str value for the wound and it would be applyed as hits.

I don't have the book in front of me but this seemed clear to me when I read it.
It seemed pretty clear that the Stank just 'takes those wounds'. I.e. cross the wounds off from the profile, that's it (which is why there needn't be a S-value, since we're not talking about "Hits" but Wounds).

No?

[Lord Inquisitor]

Hmm. It really ought to say "with no saves allowed" shouldn't it? For example, Spirit Leech causes automatic wounds, but it specifies no armour (and you can get ward saves or regeneration). Artiee is correct that it should say no armour saves, but even if you take this as obvious the question goes further - a steam tank could acquire a Ward save (e.g. in range of a Luminark). Would it get this against automatic wounds?

[Artiee]

I played against a empire player that said that he gets a armor save vs the wounds because it doesn't say that he doesn't. I read it like you DaemonReign, that you just get that many wounds. Its the risk you take for rolling over your wounds. (know about risks.. Try 2 no magic phase in a roll because your orcs want to fight among themselves with casters in the unit)

[AMWOOD co]

To T10:

Huh, thanks for the bit about Stubborn. I didn't know that (once again, I have NOT read the current Empire book). I do agree with Daemonreign, however, that we need an immediate question and a 'wait and see' policy before further clarification. We don't need to cover the issue at all possible angles (and there may be angles we have not yet conceived of).

To Artiee:

Good one, though I assume you mean 'Misfire' and not 'miscast'.

[DaemonReign]

I played against a empire player that said that he gets a armor save vs the wounds because it doesn't say that he doesn't.

Yeah I can imagine some players would do that.
Look, I'll bet you 'Anything' that if this one is addressed by an FAQ the ruling will be that you're not allowed Any Saves from Wounds suffered from the Stank Misfire Chart. That's completely evident from the 'type' of damage-mechanic we're talking about here. An FAQ isn't even going to allow Augmented Wardsaves or anything like that - it's just gonna be 'Cross the Wounds off from the profile, and move on'.
Still, as Lord Inquisitor rightly pointed out, this bit is indeed poorly written - it should say 'With No saves of Any Kind allowed' *somewhere* in that mechanic and I fear as long as it doesn't people are going to run into Empire-players who 'interpret' that as your opponant did.

Pray tell, how did your opponant resolve the issue of Regimentals passing Steadfast to Detachments? If the part of the Stank Misfire Wounds is any indication I'll venture the guess that he simple let the Detachment(s) count the ranks of the Regimental (i.e. the most favorable possible interpretation one could derive from that rule..)

This is all a shame really. I like Cruddace. I love the Empire and most of the new book is great as far as I am concerned. But where are the damn proof-readers?!

[Asensur]

I would like to add another question at the FAQ wishlist about Warmachines

Q. Which warmachines need to select a valid target within their front arc? If this restriction is applied to any warmachine, how do we determine it's front arc as they don't have any base to guess it?

And please, don't say they don't or do need front arc to shoot because people are still arguing everywhere about this.

[Artiee]

Pray tell, how did your opponant resolve the issue of Regimentals passing Steadfast to Detachments? If the part of the Stank Misfire Wounds is any indication I'll venture the guess that he simple let the Detachment(s) count the ranks of the Regimental (i.e. the most favorable possible interpretation one could derive from that rule..)

This is funny, this is one that he didn't think was passed since the regiment was not in combat.